State of New Hampshire v. Jean E. Allan
Docket No. 09-cr-1293(198841C)
Opinion Based on Fact, Circumstantial Evidence & The Obvious
This "Opening Statement" introduction and following posting in this matter has been Written by Jean E. Allan aka Jean E. Allan Sovik, (hereinafter known as DEFENDANT), beginning on this date (March 15, 2012) in re: State of New Hampshire v Jean E. Allan Docket No: 09-cr-1293-4 (199163c,199164c) & 09-cr-1346 (20016164c) and in re:Docket No: 09-CR-4147, in the Jurisdiction of Laconia District Court, 23 Academy Street, Laconia, New Hampshire 03246



On October 13, 2009 Eric Wolpin, Esq., New Hampshire Public Defender, hand delivered to me [Jean E. Allan hereinafter known as DEFENDANT] a copy of a 16 page REPORT. The REPORT had been faxed to the Laconia District Court [LDC] in re: State v Jean Allan Docket # 09-cr-1293 (198841C) at exactly 12:26 PM by the Department of Corrections, State of New Hampshire minutes before the scheduled hearing on the merits of the criminal trespass charges for which the DEFENDANT had been arrested and jailed.

The REPORT had been written by the State’s Office of the Forensic Examiner for the purpose of State’s Prosecutor, Robert Libby, to use as Exhibit A. And, although clearly stated within the body of the REPORT on pages 2-3 that certain Sources of Information had been incorporated into the complete REPORT, there is no evidence that the LDC ever received the Sources of Information (1-16), as identified in the REPORT.

The DEFENDANT has no knowledge that prior to LDC making its October 13, 2009, RULING, based upon the REPORT ( the State’s only EXHIBIT), in which the LDC found DEFENDANT ‘not competent’ to stand trial, did the LDC request or ORDER to view the documents listed Sources of Information (1-16). However, pursuant to the Court’s own Rules of Evidence, the Sources of Information comprised the complete REPORT; and, therefore, also been deemed submitted into evidence, even if they were not reviewed by the Court.

It is also important to note, at this time, that PD Wolpin’s cover letter to DEFENDANT stated that the REPORT is ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEDGED. However, a close reading of the first paragraph of page 2 of the REPORT clearly states "She [DEFENDANT] was told that the interview would not be confidential and that what she said could be reported in written format and/or oral testimony to the court". This is exactly what happened when the REPORT was faxed to LDC approximately one half hour prior to the hearing on the merits of the herein docketed case.

The State of New Hampshire had arrested DEFENDANT on misdemeanor trespass charges based upon AFFIDAVIT testimony of Attorney Peter Minkow (Member of Waukewan Holdings, Inc) who had made a claim to be DEFENDANT’s Landlord of the property located at 309 Waukewan Road, Center Harbor, New Hampshire.

Readers may be curious, at this point, and ask the question what triggered the Forensic Evaluation in the first place. The REPORT has the answer. Dr. Petrou is very clear as to why the evaluation was performed in the first place, to wit: "Ms Allan’s [ PUBLIC DEFENDER] defense attorney, Eric Wolpin, filed a Motion for Evaluation for Competency to Stand Trial dated June 4, 2009 that indicates upon meeting and speaking with Ms Allan, and exchanging emails, "serious doubts" arose regarding Ms Allan’s ability to competently assist counsel and participate in her defense with a reasonable degree of rational understanding".

DEFENDANT states herein that she met The State of New Hampshire’s assigned Public Defender twice: Once for a few minutes before she was released from jail on bail, on May 18, 2009; and once on June 4, 2009, the date PD Wolpin filed the Competency Motion. DEFENDANT had no idea that PD Wolpin intended to file the Motion that very day, June 4th. In fact, PD Wolpin’s email correspondence files will show that DEDENDANT sent an email with an attached LETTER dated June 7, 2009 (three days after the Competency Motion was filed with the Court) discussing the issue of his suggestion to file for a competency evaluation. In her email DEFENDANT offered serious objections to the Competency Motion.

In the upcoming series, of which this "Opening Statement" is merely an introduction, the DEFENDANT will show the reader what the LDC should have carefully reviewed in the REPORT had it ‘recognized’ the full and complete REPORT to incorporate all the Sources of Information documents. The DEFENDANT"S upcoming postings will also incorporate her "Complaint to the New Hampshire Medical Board" with respect to the actual interview that Office of the Forensic Examiner’s, Dr. Petrou, performed.

Since the DEFENDANT has already been denied her rights three times to cross examine her accusers. (June 16, 2009, October 13, 2009, December 21, 2010) she has decided to take her case to the ‘court of public opinion’. Therefore it will be for the reader to determine whether DEFENDANT was "competent" to have presented an ‘affirmative’ defense to the charges of criminal trespass, and to the issue of her competency.

The REPORT stated that the 309 Waukewan Road, Center Harbor, NH property is "reportedly now owned by Waukewan Holdings LLC a circumstance which Ms. Allan [DEFENDANT] disputes". What the REPORT does not state is that due to the fraud upon the court by REPORT itself, DEFENDANT’s "disputes" were never heard: NO WITNESS NO CASE.

The reader will recall that PD Wolpin was very concerned about Attorney Client Privilege when it pertained to the already very public REPORT that State introduced as Exhibit A., only a very few short minutes prior to the October 13, 2009 hearing. The incomplete REPORT was the only testimony that LDC relied upon when it Ordered DEFENDANT ‘not competent’, and dismissed the misdemeanor criminal trespass. However, perhaps then the reader should question the motives of PD Wolpin when as the REPORT stated: "The following is based upon documents (i.e. emails, letters affidavits, etc) supplied by Attorney Wolpin, and Ms. Allan [DEFENDANT] as well as her self reporting during the interview for the evaluation."

What the REPORT fails to mention is that DEFENDANT was not aware that PD Wolpin had shared many of the documents incorporated in REPORT’s Sources of Information. Had the DEFENDANT been aware of PD Wolpin’s violation of attorney client privilege at that time she would have been better prepared for the State’s ambush, but that was not to be.

At this time, the reader may want to pay some attention to the State’s narrative that Dr. Petrou’s prepared under the sub heading RELEVANT HISTORY.

The first issue DEFENDANT would have pointed out to Dr. Petrou, if she would have had the opportunity to cross examine him, under oath, in front of the LDC, would have been to respectfully request that he please repeat the narrative under the penalty of perjury. As Dr. Petrou had stated in the REPORT, he obtained much of his interpretation from the documents supplied by PD Wolpin. Then next obvious step in the upcoming postings will be a comparative analysis of number 6) in Sources of Information, with Dr. Petrou’s RELEVANT HISTORY narrative. In DEFENDANT’s opinion this is the most ‘telling’ place to begin to comprehend the State’s motive for making DEFENDANT ‘not competent’. Remember: NO WITNESS, NO CASE.

The reader can find the faxed portion of the REPORT here: FORENSIC COMPETENCY REPORT  The reader can locate Sources of Information 6) here: CASE STUDY

Essentially in the RELAVENT HISTORY section of the REPORT the State alleged that "The overarching thread that she [DEFENDANT] maintains throughout her story as described by her both during the current interview as well as in the documents she provided (the REPORT neglects to say ‘to her PD’), is held together and supported by an intricate web of complex links including (but not limited to) mobsters, financial schemers, compromised lawyers and judges, compromised agencies at high levels of NH and US Government, incompetent or compromised engineers, fraudulent or deceptive loan agreements, sabotage, physical attacks, suspicious incidents, and stolen identity".

The State’s Examiner, also in this Section, felt the need for a caveat to wit: "It is not feasible and beyond the scope of this evaluation to attempt an account that will exhaustively cover every detail as reported by Ms Allan. Also, it is important to note that almost all of the data are reported from her perspective, and I have little or not independent confirmation of the events she cites and/or counter versions of the same or similar range of events. That said, I will attempt to summarize key events and related linkages that she has reported via her written documents and/or during the interview."

In the up coming posting, DEFENDANT will use the State’s caveat against its own Sources of Information 6) (which, as the reader will recall, there is no evidence that State faxed the REPORT to LDC. Nor is there any evidence that LDC requested or Ordered a copy of the complete REPORT). The reader can then determine on the face of the two documents whether the State was or was not truthful to LDC. For the interested reader the two documents have already been posted and they can begin to make their own comparison.


FEATURES the issue: ECOTECH Stock fraud – Alan Teale and his associates. [ALAN TEAL/FIRST EQUITY INS/ECOTECH FRAUD]

(Beginning with comparisons between Sources of Information 6) "27 page correspondence from Jean Allan to Mr. David Kotz - Inspector General, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (ADRESSEE OMITTED in REPORT); Civil Rights & Civil Liberties Complaints, Office of Inspector General, US DOJ, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 4706, Washington, DC) dated January 9, 2009 with a subject heading "Issues to include a sweeping review of SEC Investigations practices and procedures", and Dr. Petrou’s RELEVANT HISTORY narrative’s interpretation of 6) itself.

[This Page Last Updated on March 26, 2012]